Edit: an internet search tells me that avgas has an octane rating of 100... So why can't we just use actual pure octane in these engines?
Edit: an internet search tells me that avgas has an octane rating of 100... So why can't we just use actual pure octane in these engines?
"Meanwhile, Teledyne Continental Motors indicates (in document X30548R3 most recently revised in 2008) that leaded avgas is required in their engines: "Current aircraft engines feature valve gear components which are designed for compatibility with the leaded ASTM D910 fuels. In such fuels, the lead acts as a lubricant, coating the contact areas between the valve, guide, and seat. The use of unleaded auto fuels with engines designed for leaded fuels can result in excessive exhaust valve seat wear due to the lack of lead with cylinder performance deteriorating to unacceptable levels in under 10 hours."[8]"
It’s not an unsolvable problem, but it’s thorny for sure both from a safety perspective and a cost perspective. You call it “being cheap” but my gut feeling is that retrofitting existing 40-year-old kit to handle unleaded Avgas safely would be capital-E Expensive.
Maintaining a beautiful car from the days of the Cold War is also not cheap, but it can be retrofitted to pass emissions tests. If you don't, you can't legally drive it. I don't see why the same doesn't apply to aircraft.
This is why buying a new spec Cessna 172 from the factory floor today will still come with the good old Lycoming O-360 engine, introduced in 1955.
Cessna sells ~250 172s per year, nowhere near enough to justify new engine approval.
- People buying, say, a new SR22 for $779,000
- People buying, say, a 1976 Cessna 172 for $72,000 and splitting it with 3 friends
Having Cirrus work on, say, regular Mogas by contracting Continental to develop a new engine would be expensive but the buyers aren’t particularly price sensitive and amortized across the typical lifetime of an aviation engine design (the IO-550 in the SR22 was first delivered in 1983) likely wouldn’t hurt much.
Trying to come up with an engine swap for the O-320 in that ‘76 172 is a whole other can of worms. Who’s going to even sign off on it? The whole aircraft is 50 years old and designed and certificated for that specific engine. There’s no financial incentive for Cessna to do it, and even if they did, the cost to do the swap would likely significantly exceed the financial capacity of many owners.
I absolutely would love to see a financially viable way to get past this! The use of LL fuel in 2022 is tragic. On the other hand, killing off a big chunk of the GA industry and leaving it solely in the purview of the Wealthy and not just dedicated hobbyists… that sucks.
For context, my family has an old Piper J3 sitting in a hangar on a farm. It definitely needs an overhaul, but to get it back in the air would likely be a low 5-figure bill; retrofitting a Mogas engine onto it in such a way that it doesn’t need to be categorized as “experimental” would be… prohibitive.
I'd like to ask one thing further: Do you think the existence of these older cheaper planes is holding back the development of upstart companies aiming for a price point that's closer to the Cessna 172 than the SR22? If leaded fuel engines were banned by the FAA today, would that create an opportunity for new entries, maybe with EV/hybrid engines? Or are there fundamentally different manufacturing economics to safely put something like that up in the air at that price point today?
0 - https://www.avweb.com/insider/faa-continues-to-stall-on-g100...
Things in aviation are incredibly expensive because of how much it costs to have things certified by the FAA for safety and reliability. I'm no legal expert but I don't think an upstart company has much wiggle room to get around that if they want to legally sell their aircraft in the US. As an example Cessna 172s are still made and AFAIK the modern ones haven't required leaded fuel for some time. A 172 is just about the most basic small airplane you can get but today a new one costs as much as a house, about $400k.
Whenever I see comments like this I always remember the airplane owner (Cessna 152) I used to know who drove a beat up old Toyota Corolla with the bumper sticker "My Other Car is an Airplane."
And BTW, general aviation has been asking for leaded avgas to be dropped for decades now. The holdup is not the pilots or plane owners but the goddamn FAA [0].
[0] https://www.avweb.com/insider/faa-continues-to-stall-on-g100...
In summary they are noticeably elevated but not as high as, an example, Flint Michigan. Lead blood levels do fall off precipitously after ~2km.
Note that this study is specifically focused on North Carolina. I'm curious if similar research has been done in the Western US. California in particular is very popular for GA. Here's the top 10: https://generalaviationnews.com/2020/02/03/top-10-busiest-ge...
edit: Another link: Santa Clara, CA recently banned sale of leaded fuel https://grist.org/transportation/california-county-bans-toxi...
> children living within 500 m, 1,000 m, or 1,500 m of an airport had average blood lead levels that were 4.4, 3.8, or 2.1% higher, respectively, than other children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas
Aviation moves very slowly because of the safety and reliability requirements. This is a blessing and a curse as far as things like that go. Generally speaking, equipment gets certificated under very specific conditions and deviating from those conditions is strongly discouraged (if nothing else, by your insurer). If the POH (Pilot Operating Handbook) says that your 1967 Cessna 172 has to run on 100LL, you run 100LL and not some unleaded 100-octane equivalent.
I don’t have the exact numbers, but outside of doctors and nouveau-riche tech folks, I would suspect that most of the North American GA (general aviation) fleet is 30-40 years old. There’s new GA aircraft coming to market, but they’re eye-wateringly expensive compared to perfectly serviceable older aircraft that can get an electronics upgrade.
There are actually very strict regulations on the maximum amount of biodiesel (fatty acid methyl esters) allowed in jet fuel. They are much more prone to microbial blooms than petroleum based fuel oils and the fungal films can clog filters, starving an engine.